There are no objective moral truths

When it comes to questions of morality, most people would agree that there are only subjective truths; this is because morality is viewed as intimately personal. It is difficult to conceptualize that there is one truth which is objectively moral. This brings me to ask if an objective moral truth can exist. Would an objective moral truth be one which is agreed to be moral by every single human being? This draws another question: if everyone agreed a moral truth to be true, would it be an objective moral truth?

Please add your input and opinions, I'm curious to hear your explanations and reasoning. Look forward to replying to all of you. Cheers!

Mar 24 2013:
Absolute Truth is a redundant phrase, like Absolute Death. The word "absolute" is not necessary. Truth is not subject to, or determined by, popular opinion. Moral standards are subject to, and determined by popular opinion. Therefore morality is not objective, nor is it Truth. Socities create and evolve their own set of moral rules. From one society to another identical behaviours may be acceptable, or unacceptable. Truth is truth in every society no matter what their moral code says. If your question is asking if there is Truth apart from moral codes the answer can only be "YES". You say it is difficult to conceptualize one truth which is objectively moral. The difficulty is because you are qualifying Truth with such modifiers as "moral", "absolute", and "objective". Your phrase is a compound misapplication of terms. Remember, Truth requires no modifiers. I cannot offer an example of an "absolute, objective moral truth" because the phrase is invalid. Perhaps the question to which you really want an answer is: "Is There Truth?".

Mar 24 2013:
Is not morality conforming to objective truth (agreed this, and absolute truth, are redundant expressions) not an objective morality? Is there a difference between morality and cultural norms? I would answer yes to both. You?

Mar 24 2013:
All morality is subjective. What is moral in one culture may be immoral in another. Such is not the case with Truth. In Classical Logic the Rule of Non-Contradiction states that data cannot be both true and untrue. You ask if morality conforming to objective truth is objective morality. No it is not.The reason is we cannot refer to Truth as a form of morality, to do so is faulty syntax. Truth is NOT a form of morality. Truth is Truth in any culture. Is there a difference between morality and cultural norms? The latter is a very imprecise term. If the question is asked, "What are the cultural norms around the world regarding loud belching during the evening meal?" You will get a range of answers. Morality is subjective as are cultural norms. I say there is no difference between the two.

Mar 25 2013:
But there is always a definitely answer to what will produce the most amount of utility and the least amount of harm. Which is objective. So in that sense it is subjective how you define Good + Evil. But once done it can be objectionably calculated. :)
Also depending on how you define "good + evil" / morality greatly impacts whether you can objectively calculate it!
Look at my reply above. I would feel bad about spamming too much. :p
But I would strongly recommend you: (Sorry to spam TED Links)
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions:http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
Dan Gilbert: Why we make bad decisions:http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness.html
READ my comment up top for more detail view! :D

Mar 25 2013:
RE: "I did not posit. . . " I see no difference between conforming to Truth, and Truth. That means it is redundant to say "conforming to Truth". Morality is subjective, Truth is objective. The word "norm" refers to statistical distribution and designates the nominal, or average datum in a set of data. How that might properly apply to a discussion of culture I do not know. The word "prevailing" has to do with being the most predominate, strongest, or most common. Again, I do not see how it could properly apply in this debate. Why don't we use the clear and simple terms "morality" and "truth"?

Mar 26 2013:
If you want to build a moral code form the top down of course you'll end up with something subjective, an objective moral code must be built from the bottom up. So go to the very basic at the very bottom, just a few examples to illustrate what I mean:

Axiom #1: To be alive is good, to be dead is bad.
Axiom #2: Survival is good, extinction is bad.
Axiom #3: The survival of the species is more important than the survival of the individuals.
Axiom #4: The survival of the ecosystem is more important than the survival of the species.
Axiom #5: The preservation of life on earth is more important than the survival of the ecosystem.

A whole objective moral code can be build upon basic, self-evident principles like this... And you don't need God or any supernatural force to tell you what is right an what is wrong, just open your eyes and see how nature works.

Mar 27 2013:
We can mostly agree that we want to survive for example. This means that you're personal morals will guide you to survive. In fact it's in our DNA to survive. We also know that we are all connected. So what promotes the survival of the whole also promotes your own survival. The problem comes when these values come head to head. What if my survival counters the survival of the whole, should I be sacrificed? The "greater good" argument is flawed in this way. My personal needs will almost always trump the needs of the host. Else we can justify killing everyone in America as it will solve the global warming problem...

Mar 24 2013:
Objective moral truth does indeed exist, and by definition requires no agreement by anyone. For to require areement by anyone, that "truth" then becomes subjective. I'm reminded of the inverted method of instruction practiced by those who teach situational ethics; which is to encourage tearing down through subjective reasoning rather than encourage applying reason to arrive at the realization of the widom of objective moral axioms.

I am curious though by what criteria is it declared that "most people would agree that there are only subjective truths". I would sadly agree to "many", but not "most".

"Objective moral truth does indeed exist, and by definition requires no agreement by anyone. "

My first question to you is:

How then do these "objective moral truths" come about ? ...if not for people coming to agreement on them? Do you not see in the world today hundreds and thousands of different attitudes and ideas of what is moral or not moral.
Do you think that they just pop up in the world ... before mankind has begun to form ideas of their own actions and cast their judgement upon these same actions.
Moral ideas are created by mankind for mankind. They are subjective and by their nature can only be and must always be in the subjective realm of the individual. Just like the inner experience of love and beauty. You cannot find these things in the "outer world" ... because they are "abstract concepts" They are inner feelings. Beauty cannot be objective because it takes the active participation of an observing individual to create the feeling of beauty.

Mar 24 2013:
Objective truth stands true independent of circumstance or agreement; if it stands on either circumstance or agreement it is not true, but merely is expedient, transitory and serves the individual or group to be self-affirming and self-justifying; but not enduring.

Objective morality is conduct based on objective truth and is also independent on circumstance or agreement, rising above oneself or any culture or time and serves the individual with surety and order. As to the source, it comes from our Creator and not the created, because the created tends toward the self-serving. Agree or not, it has no bearing on what is true; which what is true is eternal and unchanging. It otherwise is a temporary fact.

Mar 27 2013:
I say 'most' because a lot of the people that I asked have said that everything in the world is subjective. Which is obviously not true. The first, objective sentence, of this paragraph proves it. I agree. I do not think that there is a way of knowing what an objective moral truth is, but through reasoning, I concur that it must exist. Just because someone believes in something, does not mean that they are morally right in doing so. If there is in fact, a universal standard for what is moral, then any culture which does not fall into the category, is morally wrong. Therefore, the definition of morality, I purpose, is not one varied from culture to culture, person to person, it is universal. It is consistent just as all things in reality. With this logic, even beauty has a standard. There is perhaps a universal standard for what is beautiful and anyone who believes otherwise is not ideal.

Morality is temporary. It is determined by individual cultures and peoples within those cultures at a certain point in time.
Slavery was once accepted and no one ever questioned it's moral implications. Today it is quite different. One day a light went on in the heads of a society and they agreed that slavery was something that we should consider to be wrong or immoral.
A few thousand years ago, in certain cultures in South America, human sacrifice was considered an "honor" for the "chosen one" ... what do you think people in today's society would say...? Moral attitudes have changed.

Such questions are going on every single day in the minds of different cultures of people. Take the question of abortion. Is it right to take the life of a fetus? ....After how many weeks? ....8...10....12 ?

There are even some scientists that propose it is perfectly OK to take the life of a newborn baby. ... because they have not yet developed a "personality" ... Many cultures in the world in fact practice just this. They cannot provide for a baby, so they set it out in the forest alone to die.

So who's moral standard are we to use? ... the scientists? ... Moses's? ... Islam? Cut off your hand for stealing?

Morality is temporary if it is based on the subjective. Morality based on Truth (thanks to edward below) is not temporary but may be temporarily observed. I think there is error in treating morality and cultural norms as synonyms as there are obviously those who practice a morality apart from cultural norms and pointedly does not seek agreement with the surrounding culture.

Mar 25 2013:
Why should we assume the truth Edward assumes is the Truth? Maybe the Atzecs had it right.

Also there are about 600 Laws or commandments in the old testament.

I note prohibitions on child abuse, rape, and owning other humans, or equal rights for women didn't make the top ten

Oh but wait, we are commanded to kill unruly children. And its okay to own and beat slaves as long as they don't die within 2 days. Women are basically chattel and should marry their rapists And you should kill new wives who are not virgins in front of their Father.

Some of his truth is truly questionable in regards to being a a suitable objective moral framework let alone an absolute morality. Assuming divine command of one code or another seems a poor excuse for not trying to figure things out for ourselves in my opinion.

Mar 25 2013:
I'v never got the argument saying that :
God is required for objective morality.
I mean if you believe in subjective morality then God's morality is just "his" opinion, and just his "subjective truth/morality".
While you can still believe in objective morality (or view God has got it slightly wrong!) even without a God.
For instance, as in my latest reply to this "idea", defining morality and "good + Evil" is subjective. Once you have defined you can objectively calculate them. Simple :)
E.G If I defined Evil (Which I do) as : "An intentional act which causes harm physically, mentally or spiritually" then you can objectively try and calculate how your actions will do "evil". :)
While I must admit I may be wrong in my calculation or may not have the "truth" but that shouldn't stop us from pursuing it!
Watch : (Sorry to spam the TED Links!)
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions:http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
Dan Gilbert: Why we make bad decisions:http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness.html
READ my comment up top for more detail view! :D

It is, in a way, an oxymoron to use the two words together. "objective" and "moral" It is the same as asking the question is there an objective beauty. Because we all experience our own moral nature alone, within our own being, ... it is in no other realm that it can exist. I cannot experience your moral life. Nor can you experience mine. There is no other morality in the world than within your own being and my own being. Like our individual experience of beauty. It doesn't diminish the value of it because it is subjective in nature. Love is also an inner experience.
For something to be qualified as objective it must be able to be weighed and measured by others in the world, and still come to the same conclusion. as in 2+2=4 .... Geometry, physical laws, math, .. these are to be considered objective. Morality is nowhere to be found in this relationship to our observation. It lies only within our own being.

Mar 24 2013:
I agree that 'moral' references internal values, often described as either personal or religious. Perhaps the discussion might be facilitated by shifting to the search toward an objective ethical truth, ethics being understood to be the relationships between people.

Mar 25 2013:
I agree there is an objectively morality if there is an interventionist creator god who has certain commandments.

However, why assume this divine command based framework for objective morality is better than any other objective morality, say a humanistic one where what is moral is defined as what reduces suffering and improves the human condition?

If a creator god says to kill left handed people, or the tribe next door, or homosexuals, is that actually moral or immoral?

Mar 29 2013:
For some the 300 trillion cells, each as complex as a city, suspended in close formation, that constitute your body, gives a hint of intelligent creation. For others it is the inevitable result of billions of years of random mutation plus natural selection. Go figure!

Mar 30 2013:
Well, I think ultimate truth can't come from a human being because if someone brought all the answers to us science would not have exist and that person would be perfect => "God" so : ultimate truth is only for god

Mar 27 2013:
Just because we are automatically subjective creatures it does not mean we cannot know the objective realities which many individual perspectives share.

Moral relativism is just another fade of new age atheism, which is ridiculous and here is a link to my conversation where I feel as though no one really proved me wrong... UNTIL an individual decided to not separate ideas of objectivity and absolutes... Which is important, especially when considering 'philosophy' as a key point of conversation.

My closing statement can be the rest of the comment I can post here to assure anyone: objective morals do exist.

Would you like to be punished wrongfully?
Who loves genocide?
"Starving people are the greatest thing since slice bread!"

Yes, if everyone agrees on a moral truth it is as true and objective as human beings can make it. Want absolutes? Well I do not think anyone here is Godly enough to give absolute statements of morality.

Mar 28 2013:
Interesting term new atheism. I’m not sure exactly what it refers to, although I hear it bandied around by theists and the media. Is it just a label for contemporary atheism in the internet age? Are all contemporary atheists, new ones? Do they have to agree on some core positions in addition to not believing in gods. Or is it more behavioural? Perhaps a topic for another discussion.

There is no dogmatic moral system shared by contemporary atheists. However, I suggest some of the most well known atheists Harris, Barker (since the 80’s), Delahunty argue there are appropriate objective moral frameworks. The facts seem to be completely at odds with your assertion about atheism and moral relativism.

I suggest it’s often the theists saying without their god then everything is subjective, anything goes. Which is obvious nonsense if humans are going to live in groups.

Perhaps what atheists often say is all the different personal revelation based moral codes seem the epitome of subjectivity. Also, if there is actually an interventionist god, it’s not good enough to assume its divine commands set the benchmark for morality without some analysis. Why is killing homosexuals and Sabbath breakers moral simply because a god says so? Its views are just as open to analysis.

Which brings us to your examples.

What is it that makes these themes generally agreed? I suggest in this answer is where the preferred moral framework lies and it is not because a god says so.

Mar 28 2013:
To specifically address "Would you like to be punished wrongfully?":
First, I would not use 'like' in this discussion. If my understanding of the definition of morality is correct, one would need to formulate the statement as "It is morally wrong to punish someone unjustly".
For an excellent exploration of this question, I would like to recommend a story by Ursula LeGuin, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas.

Mar 27 2013:
If your survival threatens the whole yes you should be sacrificed, however if that was the case you must to be a super-villain taken out of the Marvel Comics, for regular people disabling is more suitable (we do that just now by putting people in jail). If the individual needs are smaller than the host, the individual has the preference, if the needs of the individual are equal or greater than the host the host has the preference; simple economics. if two individuals have conflicting needs it should be solved by a contest... in nature that means physical confrontation, in human society that means a legal fight.

I don't think is too hard... or if you think I've being too naive, please correct me.

Mar 27 2013:
Thanks for the input Tedsters, I will start replying shortly.

A lot of the comments, especially the earlier ones, have taken a direction which I did not intended when I proposed my question. Perhaps a thought which we can ponder is this: everything in reality exists as it is. Everyone's perception may vary, but this does not change the actual nature of the object. An idea which I have been playing around with is that moral truths exist in the same way. Why should we assume that something like morality exists entirely subjectively, while the rest of reality is objective? It is a strange and counter-intuitive reasoning but this is a forum of philosophy, so it is permissible. Our inability to identify objective moral truths does not rule out the possibility that they exist. For example, the sky is the sky, is the sky. For some people, the sky is blue; for some people with color blindness, it may be a shade of gray; this does not change the actual nature of the sky. Perhaps objective moral truths exist in the same way.

Mar 28 2013:
Are you asking for proof of a negative, that there cannot be objective moral truths? Because if you are, I will respectfully decline. I have yet to see, far less formulate, a successful negative proof.
Of course, it immediately follows that I cannot prove that there cannot be a negative proof. :-)

More to the point of this thread, are you hoping for declaratory axioms such as George QT proposes in his #1 and #2, below, or would statements of relative value, such as his #3-#5 be sufficient?

Mar 25 2013:
Part 2 :
I would very strongly recommend everybody the two TED Talks :
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions:http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
Dan Gilbert: Why we make bad decisions:http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness.html
I'v got to admit if you believe in subjective morality, I have never honestly got why people believe objective morality requires a God. Because the morality given to you by a "God" would just be his own subjective moral values. Unless God had defined good and evil in such a way he can objectively calculate what is "moral" (from his own definitions, like I have) and found that certain rules gain more utility from others.
While in the way there is nothing to stop you from going "morality is completely subjective". But I find two problems with this :
1. Only the definitions are subjective
2. Where does that lead us? I mean if you do view morals are completely subjective and depend on opinion, doesn't ethics become slightly useless (have a feeling that I may be wrong on this though!)
I mean a quick example : "One man freedom fighter is another man's terrorist."
While I am not sure you can quite judge people, partly because you will never have all the data on all their actions, intentions and all the possible consequences. I view that you can be objective in judging what "actions" are best, but maybe not people. But this aside. If morality is subjective then there is no real point in saying "It is necessary that science advances or that drugs are too pricey." I mean if this is so. Then that is just your opinion (Which sounds slightly patronizing I would prefer it if people were just like : You are wrong. And then explain to me why.) And there is no basis to go for reform. While if you believe in a form of objective morality then you could say this.
Part 3... (sorry!)

Mar 25 2013:
I'm afraid I would have to disagree with the fact that there is only "subjective morality". There are only subjective definitions.
Part 1 :
My personal theory goes a bit like this:
- Defining morality and "Good + Evil" is usually subjective. (For me I define Evil as : "An intentional act to harm someone physically, mentally or spiritually") While other may view that Good + Evil are the consequences of actions, and the ultility + harm gained from them.
But then once you have defined morality and "Good + Evil", you can easily use objective morality.
In the way if it was my definition of Evil, you could calculate what actions would cause "harm" and what actions could cause "satisfaction" and mathematically value them.
While I would define subjective truth as "the truth as an individual see's it from the data / knowledge he or she has". Subjective truth doesn't exactly effect objective truth.
In the way lots of people can view that evolution is not true, and have logical and rational reasons for doing so! But this does not stop evolution from being true.
I mean in it's simplest terms, using Sam Harris's example, is beating your child good for emotional and intellectuality growth? Probably not (if that is your aim). I mean if you found that beating children did not improve anything, and if anything hindered the child, then objectively you could say it wasn't very "Good".
While my objective morality would depend on the situation, again to quote from Sam Harris (Just to say I developed my:own theory, and then it sparked when I saw Sam Harris's talk :D) : "It is usually good to keep your queen in chess. But this isn't an abosulte I mean sometime it is better to get rid of your queen to win the game. But usually, more than often it is better to keep the queen."
There will be a part 2....

Mar 26 2013:
RE: "But there is always. . . " Sorry sir, your posts are too demanding time-wise. My attention span requires terseness so I am excluded from the more verbose comments. I have watched both talks and found them both to be provocative.

Mar 26 2013:
Fair enough. :)
Basically summing up what I say :
Once morality is defined it doesn't become subjective anymore and you can use objective morality.
It will be hard to measure objective morality due to human bias, but it is possible.
There wouldn't be any moral absolutes (e.g Killing is always wrong).
Hope this helps. :-)

Mar 26 2013:
Ooops, you made a fundamental error in defining the word "objective". You say it is the result of agreeing upon a definition (which is a 100% subjective process). BZZZZZZ! Wrong! If there is even a trace of human bias anywhere in the processs then you are dealing in SUBJECTIVE, not objective information.

Mar 26 2013:
Haha. I apologise for getting my definitions wrong.
I just feel that subjective morality them there is basiacally no morality. And that there is no,such thing as a 'right answer'. And it is just all a matter of opinion. Which makes ethics fairly useless :p
While I feel that there is always a 'right' answer to these moral questions, otherwise there is no real discussing them. :) I mean 'slavery is wrong' that's just my opinion now. And I could kill you and that would be wrong.
Hope this helps.
Also It would help me a great deal if you could define objective, because as I understand it it is the answers independent of human thought. Correct?

Mar 26 2013:
Correct. Human thought, bias, or opinion has no influence upon objective data. Morality is a human construct and is, therefore, subject to human bias, opinion, and thought. Thus the answer to the posted question is, "Correct. There are no objective moral truths." There are only subjective rules and regulationswhich constitute Morality. Truth exists independently from human influence and is unchangeable. This brings us to the threshold of the spiritual realm which is not the topic of this post.

Mar 26 2013:
But surely objective morality can still exist.
In the way : is this action beneficial for me?
If you had all the data you could easily calculate this.
And I feel that it is the most sensible option to try and form a moral code, otherwise there is no real way to make moral decisions.
You could do this without biases and culture.
Or would this be subjective as well.
So like I said : defining good and evil is subjective. Once defined can become objective. Interested in your opinion!

Mar 26 2013:
My opinion is that objective data cannot be derived from, or the result of, subjective processes. You disagree and say objective morality can exist. If there is more to be said it is for you to say. I am now just an observer. Thank you for the free exchange of opinions. Be well sir.

Mar 25 2013:
Object and subject..... Is What we claim to be objectivity really subjectivity with the least amount of bias possible. Would the best representation of an object be the sum of all subjects observing? Just to better help with this discussion.

It surprises me how so many people are trying to find an "objective morality" in the outer world. As though it could exist on its own without mankind's participation in it. They look for it like a solid rock or a tree that stands there like an object in the outer world. Some exclaim even that there cannot exist a God without and objective morality that we all can set on our shelf and gaze upon like a photo copy of the 10 commandments.

I think the problem lies in the two words. ... objective and morality. Firstly, because as I mentioned earlier, this is an oxymoron.
Secondly, because the word morality is a "collective concept" that has no real meaning until one fills it with an example of some or another form of action. It's the action that gives the word meaning. Do you see what I mean by this?
the word "beautiful" is also an example of this. It is an "abstract idea" We must give it a "concrete content" before we can say "this or that gives me an experience of beauty" If two people (or the whole word of people as Malissa questions) have an experience of beauty, say from a red rose, the two experiences are and have to be subjective. They belong to the individual who is observing the flower. Their feelings may be similar, but it does not qualify them to be "objective" ... also because only the individual having the experience can make the judgement upon him or herself as to whether or not they themselves experience something as beautiful. No one can directly experience another persons feelings.
It surprises me that the highly respected Sam Harris allow himself to fall into this intellectual trap of trying to find an objective morality

Mar 23 2013:
This seems like it would work for a objective moral truth

This is how objective morality should look;

We should redefine what peace is? Because whom are you to tell me what my peace is? See if you think we practiced the Golden Rule as defined as this we could create peace.

Its reciprocal, if party (y) want to have crazy kinky sex then he/she needs to find party (x) that also wants kinky sex and then the do on to others how they would want to be treated and have some crazy kinky sex. If party (y) want to have crazy kinky sex but party (z) does not want to then guess what you do on to others how you would want to be treated and don't have kinky sex with party (z) Because chances are there is something that party y does not want to do. (maybe party z want to kill some one) All he needs to do is find some one who is willing to die and kill them, if he cant find a party to kill, he doesn't do it. He respects the other person choices as if the are his own.

So if 2 parties want to kill each other from what they describe as peace or the greatest glory they can do for their god let them do it. It only becomes a problem when one party does not want to kill the other. Or be killed

Mar 23 2013:
Moral truth vs. written rules. To me there is not as much difference as one might think fortunately We have laws, rules of conduct, codes of ethics, and cultural norms. Try to drive without knwoing the rules of the road or to practice law without knowing the ethics rules.

Mar 23 2013:
Sure there are. Morality is what is agreed upon as moral conduct. The individual may not be able to control his impulses but most likely knows he is doing something immoral. If he does no that is psychopathic.